Planning to sit out the general election?

The next president will get to appoint at least one and perhaps as many as three Supreme Court justices. And they're appointed for life.

The current Supreme Court:

Liberals

John Paul Stevens 87

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 74

Stephen Breyer 69

David Souter 67


Insane People

Antonin Scalia 71

Clarence Thomas 59

Samuel Alito 57

John Roberts 52


Conservative

Anthony Kennedy 71


Any questions?

Yes, it's also scary as hell.

No questions Sir. Charge!:patriot:

We NEED the presidency!

or whatever they do please do not vote for McInsane.

If enough Democrats sit out the election, McCain will win. And he'll be the one shaping a Supreme Court we might have to live with for perhaps the next 20 years.

sit this one out. My opinion country comes first, cause the country cannot afford another blunder.

He/she is not sitting it out, which seems to be the issue here.

If they were a (D) last time and are voting for someone else this time do they pass muster, or is falling in line the real key here, not sitting out?

Just curious, as I may know someone who fits that description. :)

n/t

That seems to be the penalty these days for folks for won't toe the party line.

Perhaps after looking at the two corporate same old same old choices the Democrats have "approved" for us this person decided to vote for someone more in line with his/her beliefs?

You know, end the war now, put a stop to the corporate control of elections, allow for unfettered and equal media access for all candidates, stuff like that.

That would almost be progressive now, wouldn't it?

Is that not allowed here either?

Or perhaps he/she is just pulling your chain, because nothing gets the false dander of DU folks up more than the mention of Nader.

He was, after all, responsible for losing the '04 election, global warming, chicken pox, the bad service I received at a restaurant last August, and the Sox being woefully thin in middle relief.

The man gets around, don't he?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives.
Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic
candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic
Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

"Progressive ideals" or "Democratic candidates."

Surely you don't think they're one and the same, do you? :rofl:


(BYW, I wish you would have waited three additional minutes to post your reply. I had 12:25 in the "DU rules" pool.) :)

I don't know what you're trying to prove, but you're working against your own best interests if your agenda is to convert us to Hillary voters. If you haven't noticed, it's not working.

Responded to wrong poster.

Apologies from me for the incorrect response.

At this age I think I'll blame my eyes.

Well, this time anyway. :)

Most people get that wrong.

But the thing I hope you will understand is that politics is nearly always a game of compromise. Presidents have to compromise with congress, congresspeople have to compromise with each other, and voters have to compromise on their candidates. I understand that you're unhappy with our nominee, but you know something? I don't know if I've ever been happy with our nominee.

So in this situation you can either maintain your idealistic purity and throw your vote away on a third party candidate (and you most assuredly will be throwing it away because like it or not, we have this two party system) or you can compromise and vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning that comes the closest to your ideals, even if he or she doesn't come very close at all. Realistically, the next president will be either John McCain or Barack Obama. If you think one of them is better than the other, you'd be wise to take a lesser of two evils approach to the election (and if you think there's no difference, you'd better look closer). No green or libertarian is going to win this thing.

Or you can be vain, maintain your idealistic purity, vote for a Nader, and help to overturn Roe v. Wade. Those are the stakes. Now what's it going to be?

:)

Now, on to the task at hand. The premise of "throwing away" a vote is ludicrous. If you start with the false premise that all we'll ever have is a two-party system, then buy into that by casting your vote for someone who you really don't care for you then (of course) validate the false premise that all we have is a two party system.

You see, you buy into the bullshit that the big boys are selling, and I don't (I used to though. I spent most of '04 freezing my ass off in NH during the primary). The election process is corrupt beyond all belief, and you're telling me the best way to change it is not to change it all, but instead vote for the least corrupt. That's insanity.

Let's examine this. Both parties, in order to maintain complete control and make you believe there is some type of actual choice, conspire amongst themselves to keep out any and all third party candidates, or in many case candidates within the two-party system who look like they actually want to make a wave or two. It's a great racket - take Kucinich, for example. Marginalize him in the debates via talk time, questions, etc. (anyone here think the "major players" didn't sit down with the networks and discuss face time??), cut off his access to further debates by saying he didn't meet some ever-changing goal line of support and presto! out goes Dennis. Just think, if they'll do it to their own what pray tell will they do to the rogue outsider? The mother of all Catch-22's, and you buy it hook line and sinker.

Let us now move on to the "winning" part of your equation. Am I to assume from your thoughts that I am supposed to base my vote NOT on who I feel best qualified to lead, but who can "win?" THAT"S what elections are now? Should I carry this concept with me in other areas of my life? Should "winning" be my only focus? An opponent of gay marriage would probaly "win" an election in a Bible Belt state - should we vote for him, his mainstream opponent (who believes it as well, but is a Democrat and is slightly less disgusting and after all how liberal can one be in the Bible Belt) or a third party candidate who believes sexual preference is no barrier to marriage? What do we do, FD? How about if we're gay, and tired of being persecuted? What now - does "winning" matter anymore, or does conscience take over? Do we settle for half a loaf or do we finally say enough is enough and if we have to go hungry in order for our children to eat then damn it that is what we'll do?

Outside of a competitive environment (which an election most assuredly is not - it is in pure form a referendum on ideas, but has been bastardized by you and yours into a contest with a winner and a loser) "winning" is absurd notion in most walks of life. Why is an election different? Here's a test for you - spend the next week doing not what you think is best, but rather what has the highest mathematical probability of winning. Do it every time you need to make a choice. My guess is after a day or two you'd realize that "winning" should not be the focus - you'd probably realize that doing what is "right" or just" or "in the best conscience" would rule your decision-making, short-term consequences be damned. I would hope so, anyway.

Try this. You're in the correct voting district, and you ask yourself this question: Who would better serve this country in getting ALL U.S. forces out of Iraq - Cindy Sheehan or Nancy Pelosi? You know the answer, but you'd be unwilling to vote for the person who would most likely do exactly what you wanted done because she doesn't carry a magic letter next to her name and hence is "unelectable." You got your side to "win" - good for you. Perhaps you could go to a funeral or two and tell the grieving relatives you're really sorry, but well you know it's all about WINNING. They'd understand. Right?

I know I wouldn't. I'd ask you why you didn't try and elect someone who would stop the killing. What do you say then - "sorry, but she had no chance of winning."

Heaven help us all if you would.

Here it is for you in a nutshell: I OWN my vote. It goes to the person I feel would make the best elected official - not who can "win."

You want to win - join a baseball team.

You want justice and fairness back - take a stand.

Just know you won't win for a while. You may not even sniff a victory during your lifetime.

That doesn't matter to me anymore - it truly is a journey of a whole lot of miles, and it truly does take a whole lot of steps.

Really small ones at first, but that's fine by me.

It's the last one that matters most.

Peace.

...for expressing so well my own sentiments.

;)

The problem lies with the friends she chooses to hang around with, who I am sure will have a "chat" with her about the things that really matter.

You know, the guy they let stand in the corner and babble while they tell the folks that matter that Dennis is just the crazy uncle and tell the rest of the lemmings that Dennis is the "progressive wing" of the party.

Thanks for the laugh, though.

Progressive Caucus - you mean the one led by John "let's have another meeting on impeachment because I may at some point in time think about it but only if Nancy lets me" Conyers?

That one?

Oh, I hold them in SUCH high esteem - I mean, look at all the "progressive" legislative action that has come forth from their pens. And look at how active they've been!

Yes sir, a bunch of whip crackers they are.

I guess the name is good for vote-getting every two years though.

I mean, it worked for you, right? :)

Replace Nancy and maybe Conyers will grow a set again.

Replacing Pelosi will merely yield another Pelosi. It's like replacing the ranking member of the KKK with another person running for that seat. All you'll get is another KKK member. The same with Pelosi - all you'll get is another party hack. What, you think Dennis is on the short list? :)

"Maybe" this, "maybe' that - that must be a lot of never to be fulfilled hope to be carrying around. Remember, it was Nancy from San Francisco that was the "change' this time around - how did that work out?

You can't change a corporate culture by replacing interchangeable corporate parts. I wish it could be so, but it just won't ever happen. Sorry. All you do by believing it is allow them free reign to shit on your parade and then promise to clean it up if you give the new kid the cleaning supplies. Problem is, when the kid gets there he/she finds out that since nobody there got dirty nobody really cares enough to clean up the mess, they just like to talk about it. And he/she learns not to care, either.

Oh, and the answer to how many independents we have is "not enough." :)

(they bring their own cleaning stuff, and they hate messes)

LIEbermann is a Repuke so he doesn't count.

Sanders caucuses with the Democrats.

Say Cindy defeated Pelosi whom would she caucus with if she weren't totally shunned?

Shirley will be one more progressive voice in the house working with other progressives.

You keep saying this as if it's a given and I'm supposed to believe it.

Show me progress. Show me legislation. Show me ANYTHING.

Hell, one can call oneself anything - I prefer results.

And what the hell difference does it make who Cindy can caucus with? Is there some kind of in-crowd group one has to join to try and stop an illegal war? Or is it because cowards travel in PINO packs?

Jeebus man, stop playing the stupid political game and start to change the fucking system.

FOR. REAL.

:evilfrown:

When the "show me" question gets asked it usually results in a blank stare/screen.

Hopefully the fact that they have produced a big fat zero will (and they will continue to do so, due to the nature of the "corporation" they work for) cause the faithful to look around a bit and realize supporting nothing yields nothing in return.

Well, I can hope anyway, since I used to be a charter member of the Vote For An Illusion Club myself. :)

Thanks for taking the time - much appreciated.

Oh brother...

... 'smart' leadership - you just get sellouts, corporate centrists like Obama.

And Nader is a knight in shining armour. Not just a self-aggrandizing egomaniac has-been.

Idealism is nice, if you don't mind getting absolutely nothing accomplished and feeling virtuous doing it. I'd suggest finding a new hero, though. Ralph is a jerk.

Doesn't belong in DU.

I like this place, but I'll be damned if I'll let any stupid website tell me I have to vote OR ELSE. Or maybe I'll just lie about it.

And then "we" can call you names and exhibit the same behavior that "we" accuse "them" of doing all the time.

The when someone tries to point out "our" hypocrisy we can put "them" on ignore and accuse "them" of all the things "we" just did.

I don't know about you, but I think this place is a sociology professor's wet dream.

and votes for the Rethug should be tombstoned, IMHO.

which is of course why Alito and Roberts are there.

Honesty, don't you all get tired of bringing the same SC straw man out time after time when you KNOW the reason the court is stacked like it is is because its make-up does not bother the Democrats who allow it? Truth be told, a court that is so pro-corporation is EXACTLY what both parties want, but the Dems sure as hell ain't gonna tell their voters that, and since is obvious that they'll vote for 'em no matter WHO they approve why should they? They know they will face no consequence for their actions, they got everyone bamboozled into thinking that unless Democrats rule the world women will be buying coat hangers again - I mean why give up a racket this great?

Try and remember this - Roe v. Wade is the biggest vote-getter for either party, and neither one is gonna do one thing to change the "debate." It's too perfect as it is.

A lot of congressional democrats have been spineless cowards. Not all of them, but enough of them. We need to clean the corporatists out of the party, and I think we're beginning to head down that path. It would be nice if we had you to help us achieve that goal. But voting for a 3rd party candidate is not going to help with that goal.

Yes, congress has the opportunity to block SC nominations. The democrats in congress have shown themselves to be prone to acquiesce in that situation. But having a democratic president making the nominations heads that problem off..

The Roe/Wade issue is a red herring - always has been. Bush had 8 years and a stacked court to try and reverse it - he never brought one test case.

The court is structured now to render decisions that allow corporations to acquire (for lack of a better term) "people" rights. This is why nobody balked at Alito and Roberts. That is their function, and most politicians are just fine with that path.

Greed is apolitical - I can almost guarantee that the next President - regardless of party affiliation - will continue to shape the court in this direction, and will of course use Roe/Wade as the shield to get voters on both sides to play along and not watch what is truly happening.

P.S. You can not clean corporatists out of a party that is CORPORATE by design. Won't happen. The new members agree to the rules before they are even allowed to play.

You CAN clean them out if the replacements haven't taken the same "oath of office", if you catch the drift. :)

...is taped to the wall above my computer.

No way am I sitting out this election...

the liberals are hanging on for a democratic president

And some will probably not be able to make it another 4 years.

I think this is a good distinction to make.

Thanx.

I am voting! :patriot:

is a lifetime appointment.

It doesn't matter at all who I vote for. Texas will go Republican as it has for a while. So I am safe in not voting for either Democratic corporate whore.

These appointed judges mean a lot to me and my kids.

and there haven't been since 1991 when Marshall retired.

You mean Billy C. only appointed those folks he knew would be pre-approved and would continue to advance the corporations as people agenda? And that the whole Roe/Wade thing is the greatest smokescreen ever? And that the Dems who let Alito and Roberts on did so with a wink wink nod nod?

Well color me shocked.